Texas is the poster child for Section 5

Voting signs are posted before the November 2008 presidential election in a firehouse in Selma, Ala. Selma was a touchstone in the civil rights movement where Martin Luther King Jr. led marches that eventually led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ending voter disfranchisement against African Americans.

Photo By Christopher Gregory / New York Times

Protesters gather late last month in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Photo By Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

A supporter from Alabama of the VRA's Section 5 waits outside the Supreme Court before oral arguments in late February.

Recent Headlines

The right to vote is not a racial entitlement. It is sacred. In fact, it is the right from which all other rights and privileges flow. Many fought, bled, and died to protect our vote.

For years, the victories won by voting rights advocates were continually eroded. That ended in many communities when Congress enacted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which was the culmination of a century of progress for the minority community. Much has changed since its enactment, but even today the voting rights of minorities are under assault. The only difference is that now there is a law to defend our voice.

Section 5 works. Since 1982, the U.S. Department of Justice has objected to more than 700 election laws that were found to be discriminatory throughout the covered jurisdictions. Just last year, Texas made voting rights history. On August 28, 2012, a federal court found that Texas' redistricting maps were made with a discriminatory purpose and illicitly abridged the voting rights of Latinos and African Americans. Two days later, another federal court found that Texas' restrictive photo identification law was also unlawful. That is two cases in two days with one result: the defeat of Texas' concerted effort to illegally deny the growing electoral power of Latinos and African Americans.

None of this would have been possible without Section 5's powerful protection.

In 2006, the VRA was reauthorized by one of the most conservative Congresses and presidents in American history. That Congress held 21 hearings, heard from more than 90 witnesses, and compiled a record of more than 15,000 pages of evidence. And 89.6 percent of representatives voted for the bill. The vote was unanimous in the Senate.

Yet some believe that the VRA is not needed any more because the racialized politics of the 1960s have ended. Make no mistake, the VRA and Section 5 were re-enacted by a Republican Congress and president because of overwhelming congressional evidence of contemporary racial discrimination.

Many jurisdictions complain that Section 5's selective coverage is unconstitutional. What many people do not know is that jurisdictions may seek a bailout, which would allow them to opt out of the law's requirements. The jurisdiction needs to prove only that it did not violate the VRA for the past 10 years. Shouldn't that be easy? It is for many jurisdictions. Since 1984, not a single eligible jurisdiction seeking a bailout has been rejected.

Why hasn't Texas sought a bailout? Because Texas is the poster child for why Section 5 is still needed. In just the past 24 months, Texas shamefully drew redistricting plans that racially divided Latino and African American communities to dilute their combined voting strength, purposely discriminated against these communities by excluding their leaders from meaningful participation in the redistricting process, and, to top it off, passed a bill that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called a “poll tax.” This did not happen in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s. It happened in 2011.

Now, Texas is telling you that we do not need the only protection that prevented its active, intentional and very recent discrimination. Texas complains about the VRA because it works, not because it is unfair. And, more to the point, Texas' own actions have proven that it is an absolute necessity.

Why should Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act be continued? Because it works. Because it is constitutional. But, most important, because it is needed, especially here in Texas.